George Orwell Exposed Pacifists' Political Motives

frontpagemag.com ^ | October 28, 2002 | Jeff McMurdo

[Common Tator]

The President, no matter who it is has no right to commit armed forces in offensive capacity without explicit consent of the congress as per the constitution.

The constitution is what ever the judges say it is. Presidents have committed troops to War in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Kosovo and Afghanistatn with out a declaration of war. And the Supreme Court has refused to even hear a case about it. The supreme court will hear cases it thinks have constitutional issues. (See presidential election in Florida 2000) That was a constitutional issue and the justices heard it. War with out a declaration of war is not an issue and the justices refuse to even consider it.

The beltway snipers think they are God. You think you decide what the constituion says.

You need to figure out your real name. You apparently think your first name is Supreme and your last name is Court

[Destro]

You need to learn to read. I said The President, no matter who it is has no right to commit armed forces in offensive capacity without explicit consent of the congress as per the constitution.

I never once said "declaration of war" was required.

[Floz]

You apparently don't know much about Orwell. When Hitler threatened Europe, Orwell felt pacifism was a bad idea. In 1949 (a year before he died) Orwell wrote this:

"It seems doubtful whether civilization can stand another major war, and it is at least thinkable that the way out lies through non-violence."

Also, Orwell was a left-wing socialist until he died, he never rejected socialism as you said.

Research a little more before you post.

[virgil]

In the first few sentences of this article the writer addresses that the decision to go to war should be predicated on sound, rational argument. Thats what the government is supposed to do. I don't think the writer is being sly about it. He is saying that protest is not always good for the public discourse. It can actually do a lot of harm. People are supposed to write their representatives in Congress if they have a beef. Instead, they skip over that step and run into the street and raise hell. Some of us believe that American government, despite its problems, can still work. Is that being a neo-con?

[Destro]

You got that from this article?

[metesky]

There are two or three such scenes in "Mars Attacks".

[Tailgunner Joe]

The Two Antiwar Movements: Libertarian and socialist

[dirtboy]

Are there any good reasons for opposing entry into a war, and if so, how do we differentiate between good reasons for opposing war, and pacifist reasons?

First of all, a lot of the peacenik groups reflexively oppose ANY American military action in defense of its own interests. So it's OK to intervene somewhere where the US has no vital interests, but not OK to go into Afghanistan and kick some Taliban butt because they are hosting Al Queda. That is the most telling indicator of invalid war opposition.

There should be a debate going on right now - President Bush has rightly declared that the United States can act premptively against a terrorist group or nation that poses a significant threat to the United States. The debate should be, at what point is that threshhold reached? I'd like to see it being discussed, because it's critical. But the left wants only to appease, pass UN resolutions and push papers around - a method soundly discredited by recent events in North Korea. So they have largely marginalized themselves from the debate, and have abandoned any possible honorable opposition to the possible Iraqi intervention. If you are going to oppose something, you have to provide a better alternative than approaches that have already failed.

[dirtboy]

People are supposed to write their representatives in Congress if they have a beef. Instead, they skip over that step and run into the street and raise hell.

I can't say that is a bad thing, having done a fair amount of it myself when the government refuses to listen. But you need to present an alternative, instead of pushing for discredited policies and getting into bed with terrorist fronts like many of the Palistinian advocacy groups.

[dirtboy]

Where were the 'pacifists' and multilateralists when their darling Clinton was raining missiles on Serbia? I don't remember hearing them.

Well, that war wasn't about protecting American interests (at least on the surface), therefore it passed their warped morality test. Plus, the NY Times was pushing for it big-time, so that gave libs a warm and fuzzy feeling. Of course, so does having a dog pee on your leg, and for the exact same reason.

[shhrubbery!]

Where were the 'pacifists' and multilateralists when their darling Clinton was raining missiles on Serbia? I don't remember hearing them.

Most of them didn't care a fig that 2000 innocent Serbs were slaughtered, in a phony and fabricated cause, of course -- because it was done by a Democrat. But I think I remember Ramsey Clark and Noam Chomsky did speak out against Clinton's war on Serbia.

Must've been the stopped clock phenomenon.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Christopher Hitchens' new book is on Orwell.

[Tailgunner Joe]

The End of An Era - The bankruptcy of the anti-Americanists